I am having issues with the space requirements in the debate section. So I will occasionally be posted these piles of essentially continued argumentation (or comments on previous argumentation). Whine about my whining if you wish. Argue for my opponent if you wish. Agree with me if you dare ;p

1.Didn't establish inherent harm.2.Didn't address the argument for consent except to postulate that animals are only willing to hump fully clothed uncooperative people.3.Backpedaled twice off the principle he claimed justified laws. First it was necessary for human survival, then beneficial to human survival, and finally only beneficial.4.Failed to show that Pros examples of the benefits of bestiality were incorrect.5.Attempted to confuse the burden of proof which was clearly defined in round 1 and which was also perfectly consistent with the standard logic.6.Misrepresented Pros points with red herrings.7.Implies that truth can only be established by linking to a source which claims the same thing, but ironically fails to do that very thing for the supposed harm of bestiality.8.Ignores the meaning of the resolution despite having it clearly explained in section A of round 1.

I will illustrate 1-5 directly, looking at the last round and tracing the claims in it through the debate will illustrate 6-8.

(1.) Proof of Harm:

The point of citing something isn't to post a direct claim as I mentioned before: It's to come to your own conclusions. I did not put quotes or italicize that statement, therefore, it wasn't a direct claim. I just came to my own conclusion from that report of Animal Abuse by the RSPCA.

It did not directly contain that claim, your right. However, if you take direct quotes from sources, your supposed to put quotations marks and italicize them. That wasn't a direct quote. From the information from the source, I came to my own conclusion, which is what you're supposed to do. The source did explain how bestiality lead to harm against animals, so I summed it up in my own words. I don't think Pro gets the point of sources, you are supposed sum up the information in your own words.

In other words there was in fact nothing in that link (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com...) which established that bestiality usually includes harm except the allusion to it being non-consensual; which when taken in the context of this debate is circular.

The key term there is "usually" because the original claim in round one was:

I will prove that in most cases, bestiality inflicts harm on animals.

And even that is not sufficient since as per section (I) of round one:

The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate harm is necessary.

The reason "most" is not good enough is simple. If there are exceptions there should not be a rule (it is a contradiction). If it is harm not bestiality that is wrong, it is harm that should be illegal and not bestiality. Therefore Con must establish that Bestiality is harm, not bestiality is often associated with harm.

If the only necessary or even common harm is that supposedly caused by a lack of consent, then everything turned on his refutation of my argument for consent, something he also failed to do.

Furthermore he did not claim that lack of consent was what was usual in bestiality. The full claim was:

Bestiality usually includes abusing the animal in a violent, sexual way. Consequently, some animals can die from the injuries inflicted upon it

His original claim of "proof" was that bestiality is usually violent. He has only fallen back on "no consent therefore sexual assault and harm" because I called the bluff by actually reading his link.

(2.) Didn't address the argument for consent:

From the very start Cons entire case against my argument for consent has been "I didn't see it", he had little to nothing to say on the logic; his only apparent objection was that in the videos I posted there was no full intercourse.

I consider this a frantically dishonest attempt to hide behind the content rules of this site. He proceeds on the absurd premise that some unknown unseeable force is going to prevent animals from penetrating or being penetrated by humans despite the fact that they are clearly willing.

He says things like "they are just trying to masturbate" or "stimulate their sexual organs."

Repeatedly ignoring the fact that stimulating sexual organs inside or as the result of another organism"s sexual organs is defined as sex. Therefore in order to maintain that those videos did not show an animal attempting to have sex his must claim they were intentionally avoiding any penetrable orifices in the human body, for if they did hit one they would have penetrated of their own free will. Such is an affront to common sense and even if they don"t know they will penetrate they can always change their mind which was always what my argument maintained.

In the last round he claims:

At the very least, you could've linked an article on this [animals penetrating humans]

Ignoring the fact that I offered to do so in round two:

I can give you more links if you need more. I will not link to pornographic material so if you want to see a successfully completed sexual advance by an animal you will have to find it yourself. I promise you such videos exist.

No response confirming he would like more links, he does not deny that such videos exist but continues to hide behind the fact that they can"t be posted. In fact he seems to admit that he thinks they do exist:

First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for not showing pornograhic bestiality videos, we wouldn't want DDO to turn into 4chan wouldn't we? I'd first like to point out the flaws in your videos.

Turns out the flaw was that they weren't pornographic bestiality videos:

However, this debate is about sexual intercourse with animals.

I ask again:

Your objection seems to imply that if you saw a video where an animal did penetrate a human then you would know the animal consented to intercourse. Is that true or would you just claim they were trained? I can link to a verified case of an animal penetrating a human.

Again no response. Well here is a third party verified example of animal penetrating a human (obviously with some enthusiasm).

Note: Yea obviously this was bad for the guy, but he didn"t hurt the horse he hurt himself because he was stupid not malicious. Maybe if bestiality was legal someone like this wouldn't die like this because they could use custom built machines to prevent damage or go to the hospital when they need surgery.

But I did not fail to give any further support for the idea that animals act in cooperation with sexual acts. I cited Dr. Beetz in the debate:"it is increasingly acknowledged that sexual acts with animals canalso be carried out without obvious force, and even with the animal as aseemingly willing participant" (based on two studies, fully cited in the debate)

"A seemingly willing participant" that functions as base evidence for my round one argument for consent just as well as the videos do.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

Since Pro has not shown that bestiality is necessary for human's survival, there's no reason for this to be legal.

Round 2:

Since these have been beneficial to human survival, the law has made this legal.

Again, laws are made legal if they are beneficial to humans.

Round 3:

Laws are made legal if they benefit humans in some way.

I gave reasons why bestiality benefits humans in some way, Con would rather believe in mystical penis cancer causing animal vaginas.(4.) Failed to show that Pros examples of the benefits of bestiality were incorrect.

You say it will result in less STD's, but the diseases from bestiality are astronomical. Potential disease include: Brucellosis from dogs, peritonisis, Q fever, Leptospirosis etc.

Four diseases count as astronomical? Well then what about 16 https://www.beforeplay.org... That must be cosmological. If you"re thinking of finding more, save yourself some trouble I guarantee you that I will always be able to beat your bid with human to human contagions.

Did I mention that bestiality also increases penile cancer by 46%?

Did I mention that claim is bull excrement?

Despite Cons attempt to make bestiality out to be magically more prone to spread disease than human sex he did not address the other claimed benefits:

It lets us release stress and express and feel love. If done instead of promiscuous human-human sex it results in less STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and friendship destroying breakups.

Sound touchy feely subjective? It is, but so is:

Pets are not beneficial to human survival but they can benefit humans i.e. companionship, exercise etc.

(5.) Attempted to confuse the Burden of Proof:

Bestiality usually includes abusing the animal in a violent, sexual way. Consequently, some animals can die from the injuries inflicted upon it

You haven"t managed to correctly cite the source of that critical claim in three rounds. I still cannot evaluate the source of the original data; you"re out of time for that seeing as this is my last official posting. I accuse you of intentional dishonesty if you cite this or any other similar claim only in the last round. For the rest of this post I will consider your BoP for harm unmet and ignore any points relying on it.

I don't know how may times I have to say this, but I'll say it one final time. The BoP is on Pro, not me, his burden was to show that bestiality should be legal and prove that it's not inherently immoral. My job is to negate the resolution. This common knowledge for all debates.

This is a red herring, the context was the BoP of harm not anything else.The burden of proof is on Con to establish necessary harm if he wishes to use that to argue that bestiality is inherently immoral. This was stated clearly in sections (E) and (I) of round one before Con accepted the debate.

My opponent"s burden of proof is to either defeat the argument for consent, or prove it impossible for a human to mate with any species without causing pain or physical damage.

The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate harm is necessary.

If the burden is not on Con to prove that bestiality harms animals then he implies that it must be on me to prove that it doesn"t harm animals. He therefore asks me to prove a negative. At no point did I offer nor will I ever agree to prove a negative to uphold my argument. I will never ask an opponent to do such. I will never find a position valid that requires that.

Con himself implicitly accepts the impropriety of such a demand. If it were correct to do that, then why would the burden of proof me on me to prove that animals consent? Why can"t I demand Con prove they don"t?

He also automatically accepted the principle when in round 3 he said

Since you still haven't provided any evidence on how an animal becoming a pet is harming it, we'll take it that you see no harm.

If he stuck with his inverted idea of BoP the burden would be on him to prove that becoming a pet isn"t harmful just as he claims the burden is on me to prove bestiality isn"t harmful.

So, it doesn"t matter how many times he says it, the BoP is on him for proving that harm is necessary element of bestiality. The BoP for consent is on me, but he has not defeated the argument that met that burden in round 1. In the above quote from round four he attempts to make it appear as if I am claiming I have no BoP. This is dishonest.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

Many things in his final round further support the general impression of intentional or incompetent misunderstanding of Pros statements or a lack of due diligence.

Motivation

My opponent constructs a strawman about motivations and tries to hold onto it even after I specifically correct him.

I am not debating whether animals are sexually attracted to humans, it is irrelevant. They consent, their reasons are their own.

Maybe they are attracted to humans. Maybe they see any pack/herd member as valid targets for sexual interaction. Maybe they don"t find us attractive at all but we are excellent sex toys given they lack the ability to easily masturbate. Maybe they do it because they think we will like it.

Picks only:

Maybe they are attracted to humans

And says:

Notice the word maybe... First of all, even if they are, you don't back it up with a source.

Notice my dear fellow that I was enumerating possibilities and pointing out how I didn"t need to prove it was any specific one.

Evil until proven good?

In this case, the BoP is on the lobbyists that want to legalize bestiality

No the burden of proof is always on those who claim something should be illegal or is immoral. They are making the positive claim. Your statement is grounded in subjective general perceptions. For example, after the final solution was undertaken it was then considered illegal and immoral to be a free Jew. Does that mean the burden of proof is on lobbyist who want to legalize being a Jew?

No sir, it was and always will be on the person who claims being Jewish is worthy of punishment.

I, as in just me, and just in the context of this debate need to prove that animals consent because that is the moral principle I picked and the factual claim I made. Someone would be perfectly within the confines of reason to say bestiality shouldn"t be illegal because no one can make a good argument as to why it should be.

All I was saying was that in order to fairly debate the legalization of bestiality, it would be better to show consent in court.

You can show consent in court, just not legal/informed consent" this was all discussed in section (F) of round one.

Still can"t read?

As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival. Meat provides an important nutrient (protein) to humans in order to sustain their well-being. Animal coats provide necessary warmth for humans to prevent hypothermia from occuring. Since Pro has not shown that bestiality is necessary for human's survival, there's no reason for this to be legal.

You didn"t use a period, your statement was unambiguous. Your entire paragraph related to things necessary for human"s survival. [Referencing "As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival."]

Pro then goes on to say that since I stated food is neccessary for survival without any periods and that makes the statement ambiguous. I did indeed put a period after necessary fo survival, so my statement is not ambiguous.

I said unambiguous, and there was a comma not a period between the section containing "animal products" and "necessary for survival". Your last sentence in that paragraph was also unambiguous and showed that you were used "necessary for survival" as the justification for ignoring consent.

Also even if you said unambiguous, I did put a comma between animal products, and neccesary for survival in the first round. I don't see what you're getting at here.....

So now in full and readily accessible context, let me explain what I am getting at. You claimed meat was necessary for survival by implication. In the same sentence (as denoted by the comma instead of a period) you gave animal products as the subject and food as an enumeration.

Your statement was unambiguous in that it clearly implied that many animal products that could only be had by violating animal consent, including food and fur, were necessary for survival.

You misread it and thought I said ambiguous. I corrected you and accused you of having a reading problem which you must certainly did. I know there was a comma, the point was it wasn"t a period. It seems impossible to me that any intelligent adult human could carry on a "whos on first" routine like this unless they were absolutely unwilling to review anything.

Don"t believe everything you read?

Again, where did you get this information from. Since you haven't proven this, it can't be accepted to be legitimate.

The information in question is the statement "The researchers found no association between penile cancer and the number of animals the men used over time"

Well I"ll tell you: From the link on penile cancer" that you posted! (This is what the word excerpt means)

I can only imagine what Con would have to say if I had posted a link to junk science, didn"t read it, and then rejected a statement from that very same article which undermines my claim (and that of the article).The difference between pie and cake is that one is sweet while the other is sweet too!

First, assuming that an animal wants to have sexual intercouse, can lead to humans forcing them to something they don't want to do.

The assumption that an animal wants to have sex might lead to non-consensual sex, but the assumption that an animal wants to be neutered can"t lead to non-consensual mutilation?

How does that work?

However, when an animal is ill, we help them since it's benefiting their well-being. Sexual intercourse, however, does not.

Says you, they wouldn"t be humping people and couches if they didn"t have sexual tension built up. Sex is as natural to an animal as running. You would fix a broken leg on the assumption they want to keep running but you wouldn"t have sex with them despite it being just as reasonable to assume they want an orgasm every once in a while.More reading issues

In premise B1, you stated that they already are an inherent link.

That there is [not are] an inherent link, correct.

In round 3, you stated that it should be an inherent link.

Wrong, the only statement in round three you could be referring to is:

I don"t care if a government makes law based on astrology law should be based on morality.

Which happens to be what I stated in premise B.1:

Morality is independent of law, but law should be dependent on morality.

Which is a link between law and morality.

Therefore, if you amended changes to your Core Argument, it would look like this

Premise goes from "If a practice is moral it should be legal (Premise 1)" to "/If a practice is moral is should be legal since law should be based on morality"

So basically no amendment since premise 1 contains the "since""

However, your last point would've been invalid since you stated that law and morality should be linked

No I stated they are linked

In an ideal world, the probably would, but this isn't an ideal world.

An ideal would is by definition the world that should be.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

I see you"re one of those types. You know what I mean, one of the types that thinks debate is a link finding competition. The side with the most PhDs agreeing with it wins in the end.

Sorry that"s just a more specific version of the appeal to popularity informal fallacy. My authority is my argument, credible sources are only required for base facts. The only base facts that I relied on is that animals have engaged in sexual relations with humans without any negative conditioning and with the ability to choose another course of action. My videos proved this. My citation of Dr. Beetz supported it.

The guy with the most lab coats agreeing with them is not the winner, but as it stands we are tied in that department. You got one PhD who says they can"t consent. I got one PhD who says they don"t need to be forced to participate. The videos would have beat a thousand Dr. Asciones.

My doctor stated base facts, yours stated a derived one.Bull#*@%

Pro always has the BoP on everything he/she says.

Prove it (you said it didn"t you?)

If the Prosecutor were to make a negative claim, the BoP wouldn't be on the Defence to contradict that statement.

This isn"t a court of law, but the reason the prosecutor always has the BoP is because they must always make a positive claim to win their case. Their claim is always that the defendant broke the law. That is a positive action or inaction. An event which he/she/the state claims occurred.

The reason is that in America you are innocent until proven guilty, it would be quite a farce if in the same country an action is unacceptable until proven otherwise.

If a man forces a dog to have sex with him, is that doing inherent harm? The answer is yes, Pro made a false generaliztion on all forms of bestiality.

In order for harm to be inherent in an action it must be inseparable from the action, yet you had to add a qualifier "forces".

There is no inherent harm in eating. If your understanding of the English language (the language of America where" I live) was correct I would have just stated that eating poison is not harmful.Think about what you write

For example, killing somone in some situations is not inherently immoral. Does that mean, we should legalizing killing people?

It means there shouldn"t be a ban on killing and there isn"t, there is a ban on murder and manslaughter and such. The ban is the blanket generalization, not withdrawing it.

And on the first day Pro created the resolution, and he set first in the order of the first round a section A so that those who did not know English very well might understand"

It can be practiced without pain or injury, but the above resolution would legalize every form of bestiality. Again, this would include humans forcing animals into sexual intercourse which would be considered rape.

Since legalizing bestiality means legalizing all forms, we cannot make the generalization that bestiality is not inherenly abuse.

No, as I mentioned before, bestiality comes in many forms and that means legalizing every form. This includes a human perpetrating the sexual intercourse.

If sex was illegal, and I said sex should be legal; that does not legalize rape; [you fool] read section A of round 1. Especially this part:

Therefore the resolution does not mean that every act of bestiality is moral and should be legal, but that an act is not immoral and should not be illegal solely because it bestiality.

Now for half a dozen examples:

If I said men deserve freedom that does not mean criminals should not be in jail.

If I said alcohol should be legal that does not mean pouring pure alcohol all over your neighbor"s house and setting it afire should be legal.

If I said flying planes should be legal that does not mean 9/11 should be legal.

If I said Russians are nice people that does not mean Stalin is a nice person.

If I said rockets are complicated that does not mean Estes toy rocket is complicated.

If I said the wrench is too big, I do not mean it"s too big for every nut.

This is simple English, when a scope is not specified i.e. "all", "some", "most", "in of itself" you must infer it. Since the law is ultimately a list of categorical prohibitions the inferred scope is clearly "in of itself", i.e. inherently, i.e. if something is X, Y, and illegal; and X is legal, then Y is what is illegal.

X IS STILL LEGAL EVEN THOUGH THERE IS SOMETHING WHICH IS BOTH X AND ILLEGAL.

This alone means Con lost, he didn"t even understand the resolution despite it being explained extremely clearly. How could he hope to win a debate he didn"t understand? I don"t know whether to feel anger or pity but I know one is definitely warranted.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

An interesting debate about a taboo topic! Conduct goes to Con, due to Pro's insults/ad homs against him. The conduct throughout the debate was quite poor, though. Spelling and grammar were fine. Arguments. Pro argued that beastiality was not immoral, and therefore should be legal. However, Con argued that - due to the resolution aimed at legalizing all forms of beastility - it can be immoral (and detrimental) to society, it shouldn't be legal. While Pro did try to rebut this, he generally played semantics, trickery, and word play. Con pointed this out wherever it was used. Also, Pro ignored Con's contention that "all forms shouldn't be legal" and instead talked about how it could be beneficial. Consent was used a lot, with Pro arguing that a sexual advance = consent or that sexual advance = consent to sexual intercourse. Con adequately put this contention down. Arguments to Con.

I will not deconstruct and challenge them. Overall problem? You guessed it, didn't seem like he read anything but my opponents last round.

Conduct goes to Con, due to Pro's insults/ad homs against him.

There are only two things that come close to ad hom in that debate:

He's pretending to take direct quotations from me and then twisting the wording.

You going to try the same lies as wrichcirw?

You have almost as many reading problems as wrichcirw.

The last two made by me happen to be true as demonstrated above under 'Still can"t read?' and the existence of 200 vegetarians.

I challenge MysticEgg to show these were an ad hominem attacks instead of a passing truthful comment. I challenge him to explain why accusing me of twisting his words is not similarly insulting. I challenge him to support the idea that these alone outweigh Con's dishonesty as demonstrated in this thread.

Spelling and grammar were fine.

I don't even think there should be a category for this, but since there is, why don't I give you all the words misspelled by Con.

R1:Abosolutelyforseeableoccuringbehaviourbehavioursneccesarilyit's [should have been possessive 'its' in 'stimulate it's sexua', same error repeatedly]effeciently

I wouldn't do much better without a spell checker, but I used a spell checker. If MysticEgg is being so strict as to consider two truthful comments bad conduct where Con's repeated almost certainly intentional dishonesty is not, it behooves me to inform him that my opponent made over three times the spelling mistakes I did.

While Pro did try to rebut this, he generally played semantics, trickery, and word play.

... semantics, trickery, and word play. Tell me MysticEgg why is it that you and Con can mutilate the English language for your own purposes but when I point out that you are wrong, that is trickery?!

I did not just 'try' to rebut this I preempted it even when I shouldn't need to. Even if you were an [ad hom] [ad hom] [ad hom] and couldn't correctly interpret the resolution's scope, I pointed it out specifically in the first part of round one... with an example and everything.

Can you please confirm to me that you read section (A) before you voted? I would be extremely interested in knowing what convoluted thought process led you to believe the resolution implied a universal scope.

Wait, didn't you just say I tried to rebut it with semantics, trickery, and word play?

and instead talked about how it could be beneficial

I talked briefly about how it could be beneficial because that was a principle of ideal law which Con introduced! In section (3.) above I directly quote the evolving standard of good law set forth by my opponent. The last evolution was:

Again, laws are made legal if they are beneficial to humans.

Therefore pointing out benefit was simply showing that even by his latest standard bestiality should be legal. I did not talk about it instead of anything else worth addressing.

Consent was used a lot, with Pro arguing that a sexual advance = consent or that sexual advance = consent to sexual intercourse. Con adequately put this contention down.

Also incorrect, my argument was that a sexual advance was consent for a sexual advance. Furthermore that it is absurd to think no animal would be willing to go from a sexual advance to sexual intercourse when the only difference in their behavior was the cooperation of the human.

Con 'adequately' did nothing to support the notion that there was a fundamental reason to believe an animal would not be willing to continue their sexual advance on a willing human.

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 11/10/2013 10:15:02 PM, Mirza wrote:Part 2 please. Never been this excited before.

At 11/11/2013 2:23:10 AM, Noumena wrote:I think this guy will be interesting.

I think you both troll too hard.

The fact that he *did* post a part II about something totally different (someone's vote) makes this a pattern whic is interesting to me ;)

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

When you're talking about each side doing over 5,000 words, 39 typos on one side vs 12 on the other is not an issue. Not really unless it effects the flow and/or readability of the argument.

Now, if he made 39 typos, but only spat out 500 words over all his rounds, that would cause an effect. That is something one would probably notice. I doubt you noticed without C/Ping into word and running spell check.

At 11/10/2013 10:15:02 PM, Mirza wrote:Part 2 please. Never been this excited before.

At 11/11/2013 2:23:10 AM, Noumena wrote:I think this guy will be interesting.

I think you both troll too hard.

The fact that he *did* post a part II about something totally different (someone's vote) makes this a pattern whic is interesting to me ;)

That's not part II, part II will be about another debate when and if I decide to make it.

------

At 11/11/2013 9:41:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:When you're talking about each side doing over 5,000 words, 39 typos on one side vs 12 on the other is not an issue. Not really unless it effects the flow and/or readability of the argument.

Now, if he made 39 typos, but only spat out 500 words over all his rounds, that would cause an effect. That is something one would probably notice. I doubt you noticed without C/Ping into word and running spell check.

I noticed a few spelling errors but no it didn't hurt readability and I am not complaining about it. My point was that the voter was extremely strict (to the point of inaccuracy) for conduct but not spelling and grammar.

I'm sure that is the most important part of this thread [extreme sarcasm].

LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.